Regula+e - General Pharmaceutical Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fitness to practise – learning Fitness to practise – learning We receive concerns about pharmacy professionals from a wide variety of sources. Some of the concerns fall below our threshold criteria and so do not get referred on to our investigating committee or fitness to practise committee. Cases are only referred to these committees where there is reason to believe that the registrant’s fitness to practise may be impaired. We are keen to share learning from a variety of cases to improve practice and for registrants to better understand how we deal with these matters. Sometimes we have cases where the circumstances seem similar but the outcomes quite different. Here we look at two sets of examples. The first involves practising while not registered; and the second, making false claims for Medicine Use Review (MURs). First prosecution for practising while not registered The GPhC has successfully brought its first prosecution against a pharmacist for practising while suspended from the register. Mark Robert Taylor (registration number 2039228) was convicted of an offence under S38(4) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 at Tower Bridge Magistrates Court on 9 January 2012 and fined £1,750 plus costs. Our fitness to practise committee had suspended Mr Taylor’s registration on 9 June 2011 for six months, after a number of allegations were found proved during a hearing. These allegations included accessing the controlled drugs cabinet when not on duty and without authorisation, and demonstrating unprofessional and threatening behaviour to a colleague. A GPhC Inspector conducting a routine inspection of a pharmacy on 14 July 2011 found that Mr Taylor had unlawfully been working there during his period of suspension. Chief Executive and Registrar, Duncan Rudkin, said: “This conviction sends a clear message that there are serious consequences if someone tries to work as a pharmacist when they are not registered to practise. “Patients and the public can have confidence that we will take decisive action to prevent anyone from practising as a pharmacist if they do not meet the high standards of conduct, ethics and performance necessary to hold registration.” Practising while not registered The fitness to practise committee heard that a pharmacist who had been removed from the register for failing to renew his registration had worked as a locum on 43 occasions between 8 April and 18 June 2009. He had not told his employers that he had been removed from the Register. As far as he was aware, the companies he worked for believed he was a registered pharmacist. The committee heard that at the time of the offences, he had felt overwhelmed by debt. His motivation had been to try and get his financial affairs into a manageable state. He accepted that his behaviour had been both inappropriate and dishonest. The committee took into account that while the misconduct had occurred over a two-month period, it had to be seen in the context of an otherwise unblemished record. He had cooperated fully with the GPhC’s investigation and had made open and frank admissions. He had apologised for his misconduct and shown genuine remorse. A two-month suspension was imposed, which the committee said adequately reflected the aggravating and mitigating features of the case. Learning points • You cannot call yourself a pharmacist, practise as a pharmacist or hold yourself out to be a pharmacist unless you are registered with the GPhC • It is your responsibility to renew your registration annually before the deadline • The owner or superintendent pharmacist must carry out relevant checks on all staff that they employ. The registration status of a pharmacist or pharmacy technician can be checked on our live register on our website. Go to http://www.pharmacyregulation. org/registration • Our register also shows details of any fitness to practise decisions relating to a registrant. 18 <strong>Regula+e</strong>: March 2012 | Issue 4
Fitness to practise – learning Making false claims for MURs: Case one The fitness to practise committee heard allegations that a pharmacist had made false claims for Medicine Use Reviews (MURs) that had resulted in an overpayment of £22,000 to the pharmacy and a personal bonus to the pharmacist of £800. The false claims had occurred over a two-year period and his employer had been obliged to pay back the £22,000. The pharmacist had claimed for eight MURs per week, whether or not he had done them. The committee said the pharmacist’s evidence on how many MURs he had carried out was unclear and at times, contradictory. On the balance of probabilities, they said that approximately 20 per cent had not been carried out at the time a claim was made. The pharmacist had also made no record on his employer’s computer system, as required by his employer. The committee said the pharmacist had treated the dishonest reporting and claiming of MURs as an insignificant matter and had denied his dishonesty up to a very late stage in the investigation, and it was “extremely concerned” about his apparent lack of insight into his misconduct. The committee accepted that the pharmacist had felt under pressure to achieve a target of 400 MURs a year, and that he had experienced some personal and family problems. There was also no evidence of any direct risk to patient safety. However, accuracy and honesty in recordkeeping was crucial to a pharmacist’s duty. The committee concluded that his conduct was not fundamentally incompatible with registration as a pharmacist but that a clear message needed to be sent out about the unacceptability of his behaviour. The pharmacist was suspended for 12 months, with a review of the suspension by another panel of the fitness to practise committee before the end of that period. Making false claims for MURs: Case two The fitness to practise committee heard allegations that a pharmacist had submitted 308 claims for Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) over a four-month period which had not been carried out, and as a result of these claims, had received a personal bonus of £800. Over a four-month period, the pharmacist had claimed that she had completed a total of 400 MURS, but when asked by the company pharmacy manager to produce the documentary evidence, was unable to do so. There was no evidence she had done more than 92 MURs. The pharmacist had initially helped with the search for evidence that she had completed the MURs, then had admitted she had submitted inflated claims, and repaid the £800. The committee said the pharmacist had found herself out of her depth in fulfilling her responsibilities in her first non-locum role, and that she particularly wanted to impress her employers in the hope of being offered a permanent post. One way she had decided to do that was by completing a high number of MURs. She had accepted that she had acted in a dishonest manner and had breached the standards of conduct, ethics and performance which require pharmacists to make sure their professional judgement is not impaired by personal or commercial interest, incentives, targets or similar measures. In deciding on the outcome, the committee took into account the early repayment of the £800; that the events had taken place over a short period; that the pharmacist was not motivated by personal financial gain; and that there was no actual harm to patients or to the public. The pharmacist had shown insight by accepting her wrongdoing and showing remorse. She had no record of previous wrongdoings, and testimonials considered by the committee spoke highly of her care, kindness and professionalism. The committee said a lengthy suspension would be a disproportionate interruption to her career, and due to the insight shown, imposed a onemonth suspension. Learning points • You must always act with honesty and integrity • You must cooperate with investigations, acknowledge when your practice is inappropriate and reflect on how your practice should be improved or changed • You must not make claims for services that you have not carried out, even if you intend to carry them out in the near future • You must make necessary records, to show a clear audit trail of the services that you have carried out, and to comply with any requirements that may apply under your NHS contract • You must make sure that your professional judgement is not affected by having to achieve targets set in the course of your employment • If you feel under undue pressure to meet certain targets that have been set for you, you should raise this with your manager or superintendent pharmacist Upholding standards and public trust in pharmacy 19
Page 1 and 2: March 2012 | Issue 4 Upholding stan
Page 3 and 4: Registrant update Falsifying prescr
Page 5 and 6: Around Great Britain Gathering in S
Page 7 and 8: Revalidation Other proposals in the
Page 9 and 10: Registration assessment June 2012 C
Page 11 and 12: Being proportionate Law Commission
Page 13 and 14: Registered pharmacies In Scotland I
Page 15 and 16: Letters Dear Sir/Madam, I must say
Page 17: Fitness to Practise - determination

Regula+e - General Pharmaceutical Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?